Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brunette Coleman/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:31, 30 August 2011 [1].

Brunette Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Brunette Coleman/archive1

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Larkin looked like an accountant, though he rarely wrote like one. In his early years, as well as his poems he produced all kinds of other stuff; as an Oxford undergraduate he assumed the persona of a woman, "Brunette Coleman", to write risqué stories and verses about schoolgirls romping sexily about. None of this material was published in his lifetime; it surfaced among his papers after his death, and has divided critics. Some think of it as worthless Peeping Tom drivel, some think it provides important clues to the mature Larkin's poems. Others think it is merely funny, even charming. If you want to judge for yourselves properly, you'll need to get the Booth book (inter-library loans, get ready for the rush), otherwise this article may whet your appetite. The detailed peer review, with much helpful comment, is here. Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I took part in the peer review, and my few quibbles were dealt with there. Clearly meets FA criteria 1, 2 and 4, and from expert comments at PR, criterion 3 looks fine too. Tim riley (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I also took part in the peer review, and my concerns have been addressed. I believe the article meets all the FA criteria, and it's an enjoyable read. Finetooth (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I also took part in the peer review, and all the issues I raised there were addressed.

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thwaite or Thwaites?
• Why include date in Rowe citations?
• Ref 46: italicize The Observer
• Ref 47: page(s)?
• Be consistent in how you notate page ranges - for example, 241–52 vs 255–273. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being nosy at the moment, I believe I have rectified the Thwaite, Observer and the page range issues for Brian.[2] Jappalang (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikki and Jappa. The Rowe citations are dated 2000 to distinguish them from the 2001 Rowe article which is also cited. In ref 47 I had inadvertently omitted the url from the citation; this is now rectified. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I, too, have taken part in the peer review. My concerns were addressed and I believe this to be a well written, comprehensive text about a feminine pseudonym (and "her" works) used by Philip Larkin (I am confident Brian can easily address Nikkimaria's concerns above). The images are stored on the appropriate servers and are either licensed for "free" use or at least in the US public domain. Jappalang (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My thanks for their support to the gallant four peer reviwers, whose contributions can be viewed on the PR link in the nom statement. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images: A source for File:Seniorprefect titlepage.jpg would be good- who scanned it? Other than that, very well documented images, all clearly free. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it was scanned by the uploader (who is no longer active on the WP project) from a copy of the book. I can't really say; the pre-1923 publication date seems to make the image PD in the US without question. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alas, the peer review passed me by in a cloud of dust. I've caught up here though. I do have a few suggestions though:

• Lede

Interesting lede image. Is a more stereotypical schoolgirl a la St. Trinian's image available?

• Well, as you know, anything later than 1923 would mean copyright issues. I've done the best I can. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you mean contemporary to the 1920s? You might want to tweak to make that clear.

• I mean contemporary to the time that Larkin was writing his Coleman stories, i.e. 1940s. The style of schoolgirl fiction changed little in the first half of the 20th century; St Trinians in the 1950s (I'm amazed you've heard of it) was revolutionary. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As I once played College Bowl at a decently high level, the US equivalent of University Challenge, I tried to educate myself about everything, and I have yet to call the junk-clearing service to clear out my mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" after the Coleman phase the following three years" I would say "the three years following the Coleman phase".

"was divided". Would not present tense be better?

• Either works OK, but as we are talking here about reaction to the specific publication of the material, the past tense makes sense. I am not sure that there is sufficient current critical interest in the Coleman material to justify using the present tense. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Origins:

How does the title or subtitle of that short story imply pornography?

• "Thoroughly unhealthy" might imply that it's a "dirty story". However, I've altered "pornographic" to "salacious" Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some indication of any reaction by Amis would be good. I saw a mention in the lede that he more or less ignored the refs to Coleman.

• Can you clarify this point? What is the "mention in the lede" to which you refer? Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My own lack of comprehension, I'm afraid. Never mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Works

"separate from anything else" Maybe different or distinct? You might have to juggle synonyms here.

I admire your matter of fact recounting of such an outlandish plot.

" and the pair hit it off" Perhaps "become fast friends"?

"he can no longer be bothered to describe lesbian encounters in voyeuristic detail" Perhaps "bothered to" should get a slight rephrase.

" confined in" perhaps this is a matter where the language differs, but in the US we would say "confined to".

"has been loosely inserted into the typescript." I don't know what this means.

• Imagine a typescript of several sheets, stapled together. Someone slips in an extra, unstapled sheet. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Inter alia " Hm. As a lawyer I have a taste for such phrases, but I think I would say "Among other things".

• Critical reception

"bondage" Except if this falls under the undetailed confinement to the punishment room, no bondage has actually been mentioned.

• Yes, there is a little bondage in the punishment room, but it doesn't really fall into the "women punishing women" category, so I've dropped the reference to it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done as usual. --Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for this review and for your support. One point I don't understand, others I have made comments on. The rest, you can take it, have been dealt with per your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just a couple stylistic comments prior to voting. Have you specifically chosen to avoid using the harv template series to make linkable footnotes, or are you unfamiliar with them? They can assist greatly in connecting the citations to the reference. Second, is there a specific reason why "Somerville College, Oxford, the recognisable model for "St Brides", according to Motion" does not have its reference in the body of the text, with the information it supports? That would look better in my opinion.

Another comment, regarding accessability. You do not seem to have included any alt text for images, which would be helpful for people using screenreaders. Could you please add alt text per

WP:ALT? If these have been addressed I will be happy to vote. Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. Yes, I do know about the harv template. I know it is the preferred method of some editors, though I'm not altogether persuaded of the benefits of its use, particularly in articles like this where the number of sources is relatively small. Wisely, WP does not insist on it, only that the method of referencing is consistent.

Following your suggestion I have included the information and reference re Somerville in the text. As to alt text, my view on the utility of this obviously differs from yours; I am dubious of its value and I have tended not to add it in any of my recent articles. However, I know some editors feel strongly about this issue, and when it is specifically requested I am prepared to add it. I have done so here; please feel free to amend or improve the alt text in any way you wish. Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Looks great, no problems with ALT text. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.